Content
85%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is a well-structured reference with a clear ordered workflow, explicit validation checkpoints, and appropriate progressive disclosure into real reference files. It is mostly lean and actionable, with minor over-explanation in inline citations and structured-text rather than executable code blocks.
Suggestions
Tighten the inline verbatim source citations to paraphrases or move them entirely to references/sources.md to reduce token cost in the body.
Replace the structured-text blocks in Steps 5 and 6 with concrete, copy-pasteable commands (e.g., explicit SQL/Python for per-segment lift and CI computation) where feasible.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and table-driven and assumes Claude's knowledge of CIs, p-values, and experimental design, but inline verbatim citations and some narrative prose around each step could be trimmed to be fully lean. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete decision tables, specific thresholds ('> 20% of users', 'two full weeks', '14+ day window'), and a fully worked example, but the Simpson's and guardrail 'code' blocks are structured numbered text rather than executable code, leaving minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A six-step ordered workflow with explicit hard stops ('if a step blocks, do not proceed'), block/alert thresholds, and a validate-then-proceed feedback loop in the guardrail step matches the anchor for clear sequencing with explicit validation and error-recovery checkpoints. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is an overview that pushes deep methodology to clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference files (sources.md, peeking.md, guardrails.md, thresholds-and-corrections.md), all of which exist, giving easy navigation. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |